Thread: Morality and its source

I believe I would further reduce (or expand?) the Golden Rule motivator. That is, to strip it down to its nakedly self-serving roots.

I do unto others as I'd have them do unto me because I consciously or unconsciously WANT those good deeds to find their way home to roost, so to speak. Even if I'm never going to see a particular helpee again, simply getting into the habit of treating others well makes you (seem like) a generous and/or kind person, so you'd be more likely to be trusted and treated well by those you haven't yet directly interacted with (this is your reputation). Furthermore, it stands to reason that a lifestyle of lying, cheating, stealing, etc. would cause undue stress and a lack of enjoyable camaraderie.

In a nutshell, take the Golden Rule and back it up with "good things happen to good people", and that's a pretty solid basis for behaving correctly.*

In this order: act good, feel good, be good


* of course, the "correctness" of behavior is largely subjective/relative for us social animals.

Can someone help me out with the correct quote of Captain Jack Sparrow in part two of PotC?
In the german version he says:
"its not the jerks you have to keep an eye on,
its the correct people, cause they always do something extremely stupid!"

Originally Posted by JMS

But whatever your source for morality, don't you agree that it needs to be consistent and constant?

I'm going to paraphrase a couple of authors I like who give good points of view on this sort of thing.

In The Fifth Elephant by Terry Pratchett, Sam Vimes is given an axe by the Dwarven King and the King says that, over the years, the axe will get a new handle, or new blade and its design will change. But in every way it will be the axe that was given to Vimes that day.

In Day of the Triffids, Coker and David Masen are talking about why some people are clinging to their traditional moral and social views despite the post apocalyptic scenario. David Masen says that change doesnt happen overnight, but little by little, and that people dont realise that they are slowly changing to fit the environment. And as they do change they will believe that they are not changing, and moreover that they are showing steadfast strength of character.

Its the same with morals. They change over time to suit the situation and the prevailing desires of society, or if the current set of moral rules isnt working.

Back in the middle ages, people used to be publicly beheading or hanged for theft, but now we dont have capital punishment at all. Many people believe that this is morally right, for example.

Originally Posted by 0livia

Can someone help me out with the correct quote of Captain Jack Sparrow in part two of PotC?
In the german version he says:
"its not the jerks you have to keep an eye on,
its the correct people, cause they always do something extremely stupid!"

From IMDB:

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid.

Seems the English - German - English translation has messed it up quite a bit!

Originally Posted by TexasBob

From IMDB:

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid.

Seems the English - German - English translation has messed it up quite a bit!

My father always said that locks are to keep the honest people out.

perfect, thank you

Originally Posted by JMS

But whatever your source for morality, don't you agree that it needs to be consistent and constant?

no.

I think your moral compass can change like the wind. Nothing in this world is constant.

Originally Posted by gregs656

no.

I think your moral compass can change like the wind. Nothing in this world is constant.

I think there needs to be some foundation that is unchanging. This doesn't mean that your actions cannot be based on the situation or your level of understanding or maturity.

But, if morality is completely arbitrary it is a useless concept. (Some may agree with this.) if the compass changes with the wind, what makes it a "moral" compass? So the question is, is there really a core morality or are we simply organisms that react to pain, pleasure, hunger, etc. (as the wind blows).

Some would say that religion has (literally) "saved" us from this. Others would say we have evolved to a higher plane.

If morality is NOT completely arbitrary, what is the non-arbitrary part?

EDIT: With my very first sentence above: "I think there needs to be some foundation that is unchanging" I am not committing the fallacy I mentioned in an earlier post by arguing that we need an unchanging core morality (so there must be one), but that the definition of morality must include an unchanging core or it is not a good definition, as outlined (I hope) in the rest of my post.

the individual situation?

Originally Posted by TexasBob

I think there needs to be some foundation that is unchanging. This doesn't mean that your actions cannot be based on the situation or your level of understanding or maturity.

But, if morality is completely arbitrary it is a useless concept. (Some may agree with this.) So the question is, is there really a core morality or are we simply organisms that react to pain, pleasure, hunger, etc. (as the wind blows). In other words if the compass changes with the wind, what makes it a "moral" compass?

Some would say that religion has (literally) "saved" us from this. Others would say we have evolved to a higher plane.

If morality is NOT completely arbitrary, what is the non-arbitrary part?

I agree. I think there is a core of morality, such as do not kill, dont steal or hurt others. But they are more individual, do as you would be done by type things.

The morals of society do change though. Look at the treatment of criminals for example, and how divided people are about that.

I also think its quite telling how people change when the normal rules of society are removed.

Look at how people acted during wars. Some people would appear to be intrinsicly good protect others and always do the right thing. Other people would go totally off the rails and do whatever they wanted, illegal or not.

On a basic level, I think a sort of 10 commandments idea is kinda the core moral code, with other bits (like not cheating in an exam or something) coming in as our society became more sophisticated.